lol...

OK...this guy is a bit "off" but I must be bored or something because I somehow ended up on his Judging The Courts page and now, I actually have a question... I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a lawyer and I've never been a Juror, so if this makes me sound ignorant or clueless...well.....

In a nutshell this guy says that a jury has the constitutional right to come to a verdict based on their acceptance/understanding/beliefs about the law in question itself and not just accepting that the law is right and THEN deciding if it was broken. In other words, if someone is on trial for (I'll make this an extreme example) let's say going 75 in a 65 and if I as a juror don't accept the law in the first place (let's say I think its unreasonable to have to drive that speed), then I can say not guilty....even if there was video taped undisputed evidence of the person doing 75 in a 65.

He says:
"... Another [right of an American citizen] is the right of jurors to pass judgment on the law in question in the case before them."
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Now I realize that its just TV, but I've watched just about every Law and Order and they've had numerous episodes where they make a point of enforcing that you can't take ANY of that into consideration and can only base your decision on whether the law (which you have to accept is valid) was broken.

Am I gullible and clueless about even, thinking that this guy knows what he's talking about? Anyone?